Transcription of a video by O. Ressler,
recorded in Bielefeld, Germany, 29 min., 2005

We are here in front of the civilian sentry in west
Bielefeld. According to my grandfather, who was in the
communist resistance movement, the sentry and the square
in front of it were used for communist gatherings during
the Weimar era and also shortly before Hitler took over
power. These communist gatherings then fell victim to
violent acts from both the police and the fascists.

I encountered phenomena of dominance quite early on.
One of these encounters was during my apprenticeship
as a locksmith. I was confronted with hierarchies within
the firm, the behavior of the journeymen, but also the
entire atmosphere that went along with such an apprenticeship.
I wasn't really inspired to adapt to this system of
dominance. So I had my first confrontation with dominance
and power, read books and asked myself if a "just"
society were possible. At some point I stumbled across
anarchist writings. I founded Edition Blackbox together
with Michael Halfbrodt, a Bielefeld writer. It is a
libertarian press publishing anarcho-poetry, libertarian
and anarchist literature, and political texts.

In the more than 300 pages of "Anarchismus und
Konsens" (2002), I answered the question of the
anarchist principle of consensus based on "how?",
"why?" and "what can it achieve?"
Anarchy and consensus is a very broad theme and as a
whole does not touch upon the entire spectrum of anarchy.
Those anarchists who feel more in line with the classics
will only find themselves represented on the margins
here. The "Freie ArbeiterInnen-Union" (free
worker's union) works with a Soviet system that is presented
as an alternative to the current representative system.
The anarchists that I refer to in "Anarchismus
und Konsens" are more from the neo-anarchist realm.
Among them are: Jan Stehn, Burkhard Keimburg, Charlie
Blackfield, and Gunar Seitz. That is the question: how
can we imagine an alternative anarchist society that
is able to exist without a Soviet system, a society
that forms at the grass roots, at the grass roots of
everyday life, in daily mutual cooperation. The upper
social classes are entirely done away with. The issues
are: how we can arrive at decisions free of political
authority and how we can survive without an "above."

The term anarchy comes from the Greek, from "an-archia,"
which means "without dominance." Anarchy is
about a society without a ruling authority, a society
that is not hierarchically arranged in the sense of
upper and lower classes. And this is precisely what
makes people uneasy; many people can't imagine a life
or a society without an "above," without a
government. The use of the term anarchy has always been
plagued by misunderstandings. These misunderstandings
are often based on a lack of knowledge about the anarchist
movement, which has had various phases. Included in
these was also an attempt to combat governments directly
with violence in the nineteenth century. A prejudice
stemming from this time, that anarchists are prone to
violence, definitely still exists. That does not at
all apply to neo-anarchy. The neo-anarchy that has developed
in Germany since 1968 is mainly non-violent. Also in
anarcho-syndicalist contexts and in non-violent contexts,
the motto is that the goal of revolution, namely, freedom
and equality, should be reflected in the means for achieving
revolution. Accordingly, these means cannot rest on
violence because violence is not a goal of an anarchist
society.

Furthermore, anarchy is so difficult for people to
understand because many people can't imagine life without
control, the organs of the State, control from above.
They haven't learned to develop self-administered organizational
structures; they haven't learned to realize dominance-free
decision-making, beginning with their private affairs.
Therefore, a certain blind spot exists in today's so-called
democracy: people are taught about human rights, paragraph
1 of the (German) constitution, "The dignity of
man is inviolable," espouses concepts that approximate
or correspond to democracy. Yet the everyday application
of what is required of democratic systems, namely, the
population's actual self-determination, self-administration,
and self-organization, is neglected.

Consensus

If I want to describe the anarchist principle or model
of consensus, perhaps it is helpful to first speak of
this consensus model as a theory of independent decision-making,
or as a theory of direct democracy. The model refers
to the intrinsic value of political decisions, that
is, the way that a political decision is made is put
at the center of focus. "Consensus" stems
etymologically from the concept of "accordance,"
"agreement." Consensus, because it should
be free of dominance and refers to an actual communication
and decision-making process, is important in concrete
decision-making. In a theory of direct democracy, concrete
decision-making means, for example, that the agenda
includes questions of how to produce something. For
example: how can we build a center? How can we build
a street? How can we build a collective? What should
we do? Looking at representative democracy - a democratic
form characterized by representative systems - it becomes
clear that massive numbers of people who are directly
affected by these systems are ignored. This is easily
demonstrated by the German Federal Republic's Hartz
IV law and by all of the Hartz laws, which simply ignore
all recipients of unemployment assistance and gradually
push them into poverty. Persons affected by such decisions
are neglected at all times and in every respect.
In contrast, the anarchist principle of consensus democracy
foresees a very different principle that can be understood
in two ways. First, in an anarchist consensual democracy,
affected persons would have the right to be consulted
on decisions. Second, all persons who are disadvantaged
by a decision - I'll call them dissenters - would have
the right to veto in this decision-making process. This
right allows them to nullify the decision so that discussion
can begin again. Through their right to veto, dissenters
would have great significance within the decision-making
process, and the possibility to avert disadvantages.
Waste transport, for example, as it takes place in a
representative democracy, would never occur. With today's
waste transport and radioactive waste dumping, the affected
population living at the site has no veto rights whatsoever.
It has no right of any kind to nullify these decisions
by the government, although it is very strongly affected
on site by the effects of radioactive contamination
and accidents. In an anarchist consensual democracy,
such decisions would be impossible because they could
be nullified at any time by those affected, and in these
cases the affected population would simply use their
right to veto. Three basic elements provide a rough
picture of how the principle of consensus functions:
there is a meeting of the affected persons, or of those
who bear any consequences of a decision. It is possible
to react to a decision by either rejecting it through
a veto or accepting the decision. The latter means that
this issue affects me now, but I can accept the consequences
because the impact is not significant, or because I
don't want to hold up the process and I see a rationale
in it. Ideally, there is consensus, or unanimous agreement
and adherence to a decision or a perspective on the
decision. Unanimous agreement represents the ideal of
consensual democracy. In practice, however, there are
often compromises for which all sides are able to notch
up half or three-quarter advantages. Consensus is, however,
the intended goal in an anarchist consensual democracy.
The aim is to eliminate overriding majority-based decisions.

The anarchist consensus model, like anarchy as a whole,
represents a view of society that focuses especially
on the micro-level of society. Concern is not with relations
between the government and the governed, but solely
with the governed that dispose of the government. The
idea is for people to come together at a grass roots
level, independently and autonomously, and in cooperation
with others, make decisions on the so-called micro-level
of society. Anarchist theory actually has two fundamental
critiques of the State: first, the State constantly
produces governments, regardless of whether they can
be voted out of office after a certain amount of time,
and, second, this creates a hierarchically structured
upper and an affected lower class. This is unjust and
runs counter to any concept of egalitarianism and also
to a demand aired in democratic theory - that ultimately,
the main concern is the people's interests. From the
moment that governments are created, these interests
cannot be upheld. Thus, we are concerned with a critique
of the State that requires, as democracy does, that
the main focus of politics is the interests of the people.
Since this does not in fact occur, anarchists accordingly
criticize the State. Moreover, this State that constantly
produces governments also holds a monopoly on violence.
This is manifest in that it permits itself to use violence
against its enemies or against people who do not correspond
to normative ideas, while prohibiting others from using
violence. The population is ultimately exposed without
possessing viable defense. Exercising violence is the
sole privilege of the State, and this is unjust. Anarchy
aspires to a non-governmental and non-capitalist, grass
roots organizational form of society and is concerned
only with the base level of the population. Every population
makes decisions based on needs and these decisions should
be made solely by the people, by those affected. Thus,
if it is necessary to make a decision, then it is made
on the micro level, and this is organized by the affected
persons themselves. The characteristics of such a non-hierarchical
democracy would be: a self-supporting, synthesized,
anti-hierarchic organization of the people from the
bottom up, coming from the personal interests of the
federated individual groups, and a fractional and decentralized
development of cooperation and collectives. The different
types of cooperation can form at any time, but can also
dissolve in accordance with the needs of those affected.
A further characteristic is the procedural development
of decisions. Decisions can be made only if they are
made by individuals. These decisions correspond to the
needs of individuals and not to the needs of rulers
who control or want to control these individuals for
some reason. A further characteristic - and this relates
to the principle of consensus - is decentralized organization.
A consensual democracy cannot function with a population
of millions. Decentralized organization of anarchist
society is necessary, the return of politics and decisions
concerning regional and communal conditions back to
the grass roots decision-making collectives. This assures
that decisions are controlled at all times by the population
and individuals, and it assures that decisions are accessible
at all times. Decisions can be changed if the needs
of the individuals change; they are revocable at all
times.

It should be kept in mind that interregional decisions
are also possible. Processes of consensual decision-making
are not limited to regions or to interregional dimensions,
although they are not applicable to a population of
millions as in Germany. In order to regulate public
affairs, for example, the building of a street or the
construction of a school (if there are schools and we
are able to come to an agreement about them), or the
regulation of electricity, it is necessary that communities
and regions can communicate inter-regionally and consider
the demand and needs of the individuals and groups who
live in the community. In order to regulate public interests,
they can introduce intermediary committees to mediate
between the various communities and regions. These intermediary
committees attempt to develop recommendations for the
resolution of a problem. From here, the recommendations
are directed back to the grass roots groups and the
collective. In this, it is important that only those
recommendations are implemented that are agreed upon
by all participants and persons involved. It should
therefore not occur that a dissenting group is simply
ignored. Gunar Seitz described this beautifully in an
article: if a person or a group see themselves as negatively
affected because they suffer a material loss - for example,
because a street should be built on the same lot as
a house in which people live - then this type of decision
is a dominating one, since it is made in favor of the
needs of a majority over a minority. This is not allowed
in an anarchist society. The intermediary committees
would not have any kind of decision-making capacity;
they are discussion committees or circles in which all
affected persons can come together and participate in
discussion. The objective in this is to arrive at a
recommendation that is accepted by all sides and to
give this recommendation back to the grass roots groups.
This enables interregional cooperation to take place.
In order to imagine that this is indeed also feasible
and realizable, one need only notice that postal delivery
functions at the national level, and also between nations,
without the necessity for a world post office. People
are thus very much able to organize inter-regionally
with the help of committees. In an anarchist society
it is important that nobody is neglected, that nobody
feels disadvantaged by decisions. This means, in the
case of the street that leads through the lot where
a house is standing and where affected persons are living,
that one offers to move the people to another house.
This house would ideally be larger than the one before,
so that they also have an advantage from the decision.
If the people however want to continue to live in the
house, they cannot be ignored.

Installing participation as a self-evident social principle
in an anarchist society requires an unbelievably high
degree of motivation by the affected and by people who
are willing to take part in the processes of political
participation and decision-making. I can imagine a level
of motivation such as that among today's soccer fans.
While soccer fans traverse Germany in order to shout
out their club's interests, such trips could also occur
in an anarchist society - not just on the weekend, but,
in principle, at any time. They could go to those decision-making
locations where one can take part in inter-regional
discussions and decisions. The intrinsic value of the
democratic decision would stand in the foreground. The
classic theory of participation (from Habermas and many
others) already in the 1970s emphasized that participation
and partaking in democratic decisions has an intrinsic
value. This is also the case in anarchy, perhaps even
much, much stronger than any bourgeois theory has tried
to formulate or think. What counts in anarchy is the
primacy of participation, of political participation.
Whoever does not share this primacy, or does not want
to participate in democratic processes and decision-making,
is naturally not forced to do so. But anarchy and anarchist
society offer an immense opportunity to become involved
and to create reality together with others, to organize
and effectuate change on all levels.

In an anarchist society there probably would not be
anything comparable in any way with today's legal institutions,
courts, police and governmental organizations. They
would not be necessary because, according to the idea
of consensual democracy and the implementation of consensual
processes, there would be no need for the affected persons
to have to take their cases to court in order to represent
their interests, but rather, concerns would already
be a part of the process of consensual democracy. All
affected persons would be allowed to defer decisions
and negatively affected persons would have a veto right.

The simple idea of the principle of anarchist consensus
and its effects can perhaps be made plausible through
an example. The communities A, B, and C lie at a distance
to a river, and since they each want to benefit from
the river, for example, to irrigate their fields, they
would like to divert the river and bring it closer.
However, just 200 km south of the three communities
A, B, and C is the community D, which would suffer if
this river were diverted because then the river would
dry up. This community lies directly along the river
and has been able to profit from it until now. If the
river dries up as a result of the diversion to the communities
A, B, and C, then community D must have an immediate
right to veto this decision and, as a negatively affected
community, must be brought into any decisions. This
right to veto would make it impossible for communities
A, B, and C to divert the river. The only possibility
that corresponds to the principle of anarchic consensus
is to take the matter into one's own hands; not to create
disadvantages for someone else; the communities A, B,
and C would have to move to the river. Through this
measure, community D would hopefully not suffer and
such a process would be legitimate. Therefore, the principle
of anarchist consensus aims especially at avoiding inter-regional
problems, at preventing material losses to others, and,
whenever possible, making decisions that have consequences
only for oneself and not negative consequences for others.

Critique

Naturally there are numerous critiques of the model
of anarchist consensus and these are also addressed
in detail in the book. Perhaps one of the strongest
arguments is that, to establish the anarchist consensus
model, to establish anarchist direct democracy along
with the principle of consensus, a radical break in
the sense of a system transformation would have to occur,
which is not attainable with either today's political
or economic elite. This transition to an anarchist consensual
democracy would mean the complete abolishment of their
power.
Another point of criticism is that, under the model
of anarchist consensus, certain technical conditions
would no longer prevail as they do today. Technologies
for electrical supply such as nuclear power cannot be
subject to consensus, because in the case of an accident
it would cause suffering on both the regional and inter-regional
levels. For this reason, there can be no consensus on
nuclear energy. An anarchist consensual democracy would
have to introduce alternative technologies that do not
have negative impacts. This demands a lot of imagination,
to come up with alternative technological solutions
for which there can be a consensus.

Transition

There would have to be self-organization from below
in the form of self-administered projects. Anarchist
society is not a distant goal; rather, the aim toward
it begins in the here and now with the development of
federated contexts, the development of self-administered
projects, self-organized houses, self-managed printing
presses, etc. The idea is that the people organize themselves
at the grass roots and in the here and now, actually
right now - yesterday even - and in the end make the
State superfluous. Ultimately, it concerns a re-thinking
for us as individuals, as subjects. It is important
to understand that we must emancipate ourselves rather
than make ourselves dependent on outer conditions or
State regulations in order to arrive at a free and autonomous
life. It is about re-creating the world for ourselves.
The concluding statement in my book reads: democracy
has not reached its conceivable conclusion, but rather,
has just begun.

Poem (excerpt): 1999, by Ralf Burnicki

Filtered over the ramp into the inner lining of the
emergency ward, the patient shows no misgivings; just
a strict discipline that he copies from the white coat
of the doctor, his thoughts orbited by the narrowing
orbit of the staff, advancing with selectively chosen
words to the crisis case...